United States v. Joseph Bogdan, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15983

Background

Joseph Bogdan pleaded guilty under a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea (a “(C) agreement”) in 2010 to conspiring to distribute >500 g methamphetamine, stipulating to a 240‑month sentence. The plea acknowledged three prior felony drug convictions.
The government agreed to dismiss other counts and withdraw two of three prior convictions from its § 851 notice, which lowered Bogdan’s mandatory statutory exposure from life to 240 months.
The government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) for a downward variance for substantial assistance; the district court accepted the (C) agreement, granted a 15% reduction, and sentenced Bogdan to 204 months.
Amendment 782 (retroactive) reduced most drug base offense levels by two levels; the Probation Office reported Bogdan might be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction based on that amendment.
The district court denied relief, holding Bogdan’s sentence derived from the (C) agreement (and the statutory mandatory minimum), not from a guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782; Bogdan appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding the written (C) agreement did not make clear that the specified term was based on an applicable Guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bogdan is eligible for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) despite a (C) agreement	Bogdan: the 240‑month term was based on an applicable Guidelines range (PSR 188–235) that Amendment 782 lowered, so § 3582(c)(2) applies	Government: sentence was the product of a (C) agreement and statutory mandatory minimums, not a Guidelines range affected by Amendment 782	Court: Not eligible—(C) agreement does not clearly show the term was based on an applicable Guidelines range lowered by Amendment 782
Whether a statutory mandatory minimum that controls the sentence prevents a § 3582(c)(2) reduction	Bogdan: § 5G1.1 produced an “applicable guideline range” incorporating the mandatory minimum, enabling relief	Government: a statutory mandatory minimum determines the sentence and a subsequent guidelines amendment cannot lower that statutory floor	Court: assumed without deciding that some precedent was superseded by Commission action, but noted statutory minimums can preclude § 3582(c)(2) relief in many circumstances and analyzed the (C) agreement instead
Whether referencing a mandatory minimum that becomes a Guidelines range under § 5G1.1 makes a (C) agreement "based on" the Guidelines	Bogdan: the agreement’s 240 months was functionally tied to a Guidelines range via § 5G1.1	Government: the agreement was based on achieving the statutory minimum via withdrawal of § 851 enhancements, not on a Guidelines calculation	Court: the (C) agreement did not recite or make evident the particular Guidelines range; thus Freeman’s test for (C) agreements is not satisfied

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Freeman, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011) (plurality and controlling concurrence setting test for when a (C) agreement is "based on" a Guidelines range)
United States v. Browne, 698 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2012) (focus on the written plea agreement to determine § 3582(c)(2) eligibility)
Golden v. United States, 709 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir.) (pre‑Amendment‑780 decision on interaction of mandatory minimums and § 3582(c)(2))
United States v. Moore, 734 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2013) (addressing § 3582(c)(2) eligibility where mandatory minimum affected sentence)
United States v. Bailey, 820 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2016) (applying Freeman’s criteria to (C) agreements)
United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2014) (agreement that does not explicitly adopt a Guidelines range does not satisfy Freeman)